Structural validity of a brief scale adapted to measure adolescent spiritual health
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Spiritual health is established as an important protective health asset in child populations. Measurement and assessment of this elusive concept are, however, challenging. Brief and age-appropriate instruments are required for surveys and related population health research. One longstanding model describing child spirituality suggests that scales and measures consider four standard domains describing connections to self, others, nature, and the transcendent. In this validation study, we tested the structural validity and internal consistency of a brief, literacy-level appropriate instrument for adolescents that was based on prior adaptations of this model. The 2018 cross-national study population included 47,180 children aged 11-15 years from 9 countries. Based upon theory, factor pattern matrices, and Scree plots, the exploratory factor analysis best supported the four-factor model, with items organized according to the original four domains. Internal consistency of the items was acceptable (alpha>.7) to good (alpha>.8) within domains, again within each of the 9 countries. The confirmatory factor analysis again supported the four-factor model (by country, SRMR: 0.020 to 0.042; and AGFI and NFI fit: >0.98). Model fit indices for the four-factor model were improved compared with its unidimensional version. Moving forward, our analysis establishes the structural validity and internal consistency of this adapted brief spiritual health instrument to be used in surveys of adolescents.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".